What hit the Pentagon?

jared2 · 05-26-2006, 02:16 PM

PENTAGON VIDEOS A FIASCO, SCHOLARS CONCLUDE

Reinforces skepticism about official account of 9/11, experts maintain

Duluth, MN (PRWE

May 22, 2006 --
9/11 videotapes released by the Pentagon in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Judicial Watch raise more questions than they answer, in the opinion of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a non-partisan society of experts devoted to sorting truth from fiction about those events.

According to James H. Fetzer, the society's founder, "Defenders of the official account have been touting them as refuting 'conspiracy theories' about the Pentagon attack, but they show no signs of any Boeing 757 and only raise more concern about the government's relentless efforts to deny the truth to the American people."

The two clips that have been released, which allegedly show the impact of a plane on the building, are presently archived at the Judicial Watch web site, www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml, and at the Scholar's web site, www.st911.org. The first runs 3:11, the second 3:22 or just 11 seconds longer.

"A Boeing 757 has a wing span of 125 feet and a tail standing 44 feet above the ground. It's 155 feet long. If a plane of these dimensions had hit the building and these tapes were authentic, then it would have been obvious," Fetzer said. "They should have looked a lot like the simulation at www.tinyurl.com/f9nad. But they don't."

The Reception on Fox TV

Steven Jones, co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 truth, observed that the new footage had appeared on Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox TV. After actually viewing the footage, O'Reilly was forced to admit, "I can't see a plane there." Bret Baier of Fox likewise stated, "People looking at this tape would probably be underwhelmed." He added, "After seeing this tape, those conspiracy theories will likely continue."

"It's basically a case of the Emperor's new clothes," Jones said, "where several reporters are spouting the 'official line' that the new footage proves that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. When honest people review these videotapes for themselves, however, many have the courage to acknowledge that they don't see a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon. The government has not proven its case at all."

David Ray Griffin, a member of Scholars and author of several books on 9/11, observed that there are reports of more than 80 videos of the Pentagon hit. "One of these videos was taken from a nearby hotel and should show exactly what happened during the crash. The FBI gathered them up almost immediately, which has left a gaping hole in the available evidence."

Jones, a professor of physics at BYU, has observed that Scholars has called for release of the seized surveillance videos, including those taken from the Citgo gas station and several hotels located near the Pentagon. "The release of all of these video tapes is the first of our request that twelve kinds of data be released," he said, "in the petition that we have circulated, which now has over 9,500 signatures." The petition can be found at www.st911.org.

Problems at the Pentagon

Serious questions have arisen about the Pentagon attack on multiple grounds. First, the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least valuable target to attack. Under reconstruction, it was sparsely populated; it was far removed from the east wing, where the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs were situated; and it had been reinforced, so a strike on any other portion of the building, such as plunging though the roof, would have been easier to accomplish and caused more damage.

Second, according to both eyewitnesses and photographs, the strike on the Pentagon produced neither the aircraft debris nor the damage to the building that would have been expected from the impact of a plane with the mass and dimensions of a Boeing 757. A photograph taken before the upper floors fell, which is archived on the resources page of st911.org, for example, renders the official account highly implausible.

Third, the alleged pilot, Hani Hanjour, was regarded by his own flight instructors as incompetent to fly even small aircraft. It would have been highly improbable for a pilot of his mediocre abilities to have successfully piloted a Boeing 757 or executed the maneuvers that were required to hit the building.

In a press release on 12 March 2006, the Scholars observed that Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation, told The 9/11 Commission that, in an underground bunker beneath the White House that morning, he had observed a young aide repeatedly approach the Vice President and inform him of an aircraft approaching the Pentagon, asking if the "orders" still stand. The orders, which Cheney affirmed, appear to have been that the aircraft should not be shot down.

Reinforcing Skepticism

"Skepticism about the official account is actually reinforced by the newly released videos," Fetzer said. "If a Boeing 757 had come across the lawn at low altitude but high speed, it would have brought about extensive damage to the lawn." And both of the videos suggest that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was skimming just above the ground.

The "smoking gun" at the Pentagon, he observed, is the clear, smooth and unblemished lawn. "It would have been especially unlikely that an inexperienced pilot like Hanjour could have flown a large airplane so close to the ground and not collided with it," Fetzer remarked. "That is a feat even experienced pilots would have found very difficult to accomplish."

"No one watching these clips over and over, focusing on each frame, can find unambiguous support for a large aircraft, much less a Boeing 757," he added. "How much less likely that bypassers in the vicinity, who only had a brief chance to notice this happening, could have figured out what they saw. Nothing here remotely resembles a Boeing 757."

Even the Pentagon itself is covered with cameras. The most serious question raised by the release of these videos may be why other videos, which would provide clearer and far more revealing information, have not been released. "The most plausible explanation for withholding this evidence from the American public," Griffin observed, "is that the American government has a great deal to hide."

_____________________

Contact information:

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
(218) 726-7269 (office)
(218) 724-2706 (home)
(218) 726-7119 (fax)
http://www.st911.org

geologyrox · 05-26-2006, 02:28 PM

I'm not a conspiracy theorist - in fact, I thought this theory was so distasteful that I hadn't searched out any details, until they appeared on PriusChat. I admit I'm hardly convinced - not even sure it's credible, as I haven't looked at the details. I am a little confused as to why the response to conspiracy theories would be to release an inconclusive tape. I was active in the Civil Air Patrol for quite a while, and even worked a few crash sites. I can't imagine that if a 757 hit the Pentagon, it wouldn't be obvious that a 757 hit the Pentagon. It should be easy to find one short tape that would make it crystal clear.

How has this gotten stirred up? Jared, have any facts for a SAR girl like me to skim through? I admit I'm afraid to see what kind of sites this must be popping up on.

jared2 · 05-26-2006, 02:49 PM

"Jared, have any facts for a SAR girl like me to skim through"

I recommend "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11" by David Ray Griffin and "The War on truth:9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism" by Nafeez Mosaddeq Mosaddeq Ahmed. Also, the websites: http://www.911truth.org/ and scholars for 911 truth at http://www.st911.org/

Have a good weekend.

Marlin · 05-26-2006, 02:57 PM

Seeing how the WTC was definitely hit by large commercial airplanes (we're not disputing that too are we?), why is it so hard to believe that a plane that disappeared over DC, from which cell phone calls were received stating that it had been hijacked, was what slammed into the Pentagon?

I'm curious. Did they ever retrieve any large piece of the planes that hit the WTC towers?

jared2 · 05-26-2006, 03:07 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ May 26 2006, 02:57 PM) [snapback]261425[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

Seeing how the WTC was definitely hit by large commercial airplanes (we're not disputing that too are we?), why is it so hard to believe that a plane that disappeared over DC, from which cell phone calls were received stating that it had been hijacked, was what slammed into the Pentagon?

I'm curious. Did they ever retrieve any large piece of the planes that hit the WTC towers?
[/b]

"Even the Pentagon itself is covered with cameras. The most serious question raised by the release of these videos may be why other videos, which would provide clearer and far more revealing information, have not been released. "The most plausible explanation for withholding this evidence from the American public," Griffin observed, "is that the American government has a great deal to hide.""

I wonder why the government is not releasing all the tapes?

airportkid · 05-26-2006, 07:09 PM

That the gov't, especially THIS gov't, refuses to release information does not automatically mean that Flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon. It only means that some gov't functionaries fear embarassment or loss of their jobs if they release info. Sheesh.

Conspiracist wackos: answer a few obvious, glaring questions:

Why was Flight 77's flight data recorder recovered from the ruins of pentagon, if the jet hadn't flown into it? It was this recorder that gave investigators the information that Flight 77's autopilot had been disengaged several minutes prior to the crash.

What did the C-130 pilot, instructed to follow to the airliner he'd nearly collided with, see when he turned to follow it and watched it crash into the pentagon?

And most important, WHERE is Flight 77, if not at the pentagon?

The conspiracist nuts complain that Flight 77's hijacking pilot wasn't skilled enough to make the maneuvers observed by numerous witnesses before the jet struck the pentagon, so it could not have struck the pentagon. Well, here's some news just in: the Titanic's helmsman wasn't skilled enough to steer such a large ship such a precise glancing blow against the iceberg, so the Titanic never sank. It's ancient hull was recently discovered in Perth, ashore and converted in 1916 to a block of low rent flats.

The Cheney (Bush puppet) gov't is without question witholding info, stonewalling and in all respects behaving in a manner that gives undiluted evil a bad name, but attacking it by claiming space aliens teleported a full sized airliner to Alpha Centaurus, or whatever it is the conspiracist loons' confused, incoherent claims are, does NOT help.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

Sufferin' Prius Envy · 05-26-2006, 10:33 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ May 26 2006, 04:09 PM) [snapback]261522[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

And most important, WHERE is Flight 77, if not at the pentagon?[/b]

No, most important is where are the passengers from Flight 77.

Maybe it is a Women's Gymnastics conspiracy!

You know how ugly competitive cheerleading can get. You also remember what happened to Nancy Kerrigan, don't you? I believe womens' sports has a very sinister side which has not been fully reported by the mainstream media. There is a cover-up going on. I think the sports writers are too afraid that they will upset "The Syndicate" if they report what really happens behind the scenes.

My theory of Flight 77:
Look no further than the United States Air Force Academy Women's Gymnastics program. Reportedly headed by several five star generals, and an unidentified underworld type civilian, who work from a secret room behind the women's locker room. Their mission; To advance the Air Force's position as THE superior branch of the US Military – in every aspect . . . from number of Washington insiders to bragging rights of who has the best pilots . . . and all the way down to who has the best sports teams. After all, they were admirers of the propaganda value demonstrated by the Nazi sports machine.

A perfect storm of opportunity arose when their super-secret "Subjugator" computer program informed them that Flight 77 was a golden opportunity to advance their goal. Not only would they be taking out several influential retired and ex-Navy personnel, including the pilot of the aircraft, but by flying the aircraft directly into the Navy wing of the Pentagon, they would be striking a direct blow to the branch of the service which they most abhor. The last bit of information which gave the secret mission a “GO,” was the fact that the Women's Gymnastics program's arch enemy's recently hired coach was listed as a passenger on the flight. Indeed, Coach Mari-Rae Sopper was on her way to meet the team for the first time. It was common nowledge in the gymnastics world that Mari-Rae was the final ingredient which would have transformed the UC Santa Barbra women's gymnastics program into an unbeatable national collegiate powerhouse.
http://www.instadv.ucsb.edu/coachdies/index.html

Proof of the effectiveness of the generals' decision to take out Flight 77 . . .

March 28, 2002
Colorado Springs, Colo. -
With a season-high team score of 189.25, the UC Santa Barbara women's gymnastics tem finished fifth at the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation Championships on March 23 in Colorado Springs, Colo.
Sacramento State won the league crown with a score of 194.400, followed by meet host Air Force (194.650), San Jose State (193.375) and UC Davis (192.000).
http://ucsbgauchos.cstv.com/sports/w-gym/r.../032802aaa.html

The generals failed to take into account the quarter of a point margin of error of their computer system, and an upstart Sacramento State team spoiled their plans by 0.250 points . . . coincidence? I think not.
If I were Sac State's Women's Gymnastics coach, I'd be watching my back and flying under an assumed name.

daniel · 05-27-2006, 01:36 AM

Are we supposed to believe that after two planes hit the World Trade Towers, and shortly before a third crashed into a field because the passengers turned against the hijackers, the CIA, or some other super-secret government agency, hijacked flight 77 and took it somewhere secret and secretly imprisoned the passengers, and then crashed something else into the pentagon to cover up for their own hijacking? And for what purpose? At least the JFK conspiracy theorists can offer a plausible motive for their conspiracy (somebody wanted LBJ instead of JFK in the White House).

All I can say is, that's pretty wacky.

Sure the government has covered up for its own stupidity and incompetence, and refused to give out lots of information. But this notion that whatever hit the Pentagon was not flight 77, is the looniest of all the conspiracy theories going around.

eyeguy13 · 05-27-2006, 02:33 AM

What hit the Pentagon??

Nothing!!!!

It was all done on a sound stage. The same sound stage that 'faked' the moon landings. Don't you guys know anything??? Going to the moon?? How could that be possible?

(joking of course.......it's 1:32 AM, what the hell am I doing on PriusChat. I need to get a life

)

Jeff Beaver · 05-27-2006, 02:35 AM

Frankly, I find this nauseating thread an insult to my intelligence, and an afront to every decent American. I've got news for the simple minded left wing nut job conspiracy theorists. It was 19 fanatical Arab Islamists -- not Bush, and not some dark neocon plot. And yes, Jews did go to work at the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11. End of story.

05-26-2006, 02:16 PM	#1
jared2 Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,615 My Car: Model: Package: Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Friends: 0	PENTAGON VIDEOS A FIASCO, SCHOLARS CONCLUDE Reinforces skepticism about official account of 9/11, experts maintain Duluth, MN (PRWE May 22, 2006 -- 9/11 videotapes released by the Pentagon in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Judicial Watch raise more questions than they answer, in the opinion of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a non-partisan society of experts devoted to sorting truth from fiction about those events. According to James H. Fetzer, the society's founder, "Defenders of the official account have been touting them as refuting 'conspiracy theories' about the Pentagon attack, but they show no signs of any Boeing 757 and only raise more concern about the government's relentless efforts to deny the truth to the American people." The two clips that have been released, which allegedly show the impact of a plane on the building, are presently archived at the Judicial Watch web site, www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml, and at the Scholar's web site, www.st911.org. The first runs 3:11, the second 3:22 or just 11 seconds longer. "A Boeing 757 has a wing span of 125 feet and a tail standing 44 feet above the ground. It's 155 feet long. If a plane of these dimensions had hit the building and these tapes were authentic, then it would have been obvious," Fetzer said. "They should have looked a lot like the simulation at www.tinyurl.com/f9nad. But they don't." The Reception on Fox TV Steven Jones, co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 truth, observed that the new footage had appeared on Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox TV. After actually viewing the footage, O'Reilly was forced to admit, "I can't see a plane there." Bret Baier of Fox likewise stated, "People looking at this tape would probably be underwhelmed." He added, "After seeing this tape, those conspiracy theories will likely continue." "It's basically a case of the Emperor's new clothes," Jones said, "where several reporters are spouting the 'official line' that the new footage proves that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. When honest people review these videotapes for themselves, however, many have the courage to acknowledge that they don't see a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon. The government has not proven its case at all." David Ray Griffin, a member of Scholars and author of several books on 9/11, observed that there are reports of more than 80 videos of the Pentagon hit. "One of these videos was taken from a nearby hotel and should show exactly what happened during the crash. The FBI gathered them up almost immediately, which has left a gaping hole in the available evidence." Jones, a professor of physics at BYU, has observed that Scholars has called for release of the seized surveillance videos, including those taken from the Citgo gas station and several hotels located near the Pentagon. "The release of all of these video tapes is the first of our request that twelve kinds of data be released," he said, "in the petition that we have circulated, which now has over 9,500 signatures." The petition can be found at www.st911.org. Problems at the Pentagon Serious questions have arisen about the Pentagon attack on multiple grounds. First, the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least valuable target to attack. Under reconstruction, it was sparsely populated; it was far removed from the east wing, where the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs were situated; and it had been reinforced, so a strike on any other portion of the building, such as plunging though the roof, would have been easier to accomplish and caused more damage. Second, according to both eyewitnesses and photographs, the strike on the Pentagon produced neither the aircraft debris nor the damage to the building that would have been expected from the impact of a plane with the mass and dimensions of a Boeing 757. A photograph taken before the upper floors fell, which is archived on the resources page of st911.org, for example, renders the official account highly implausible. Third, the alleged pilot, Hani Hanjour, was regarded by his own flight instructors as incompetent to fly even small aircraft. It would have been highly improbable for a pilot of his mediocre abilities to have successfully piloted a Boeing 757 or executed the maneuvers that were required to hit the building. In a press release on 12 March 2006, the Scholars observed that Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation, told The 9/11 Commission that, in an underground bunker beneath the White House that morning, he had observed a young aide repeatedly approach the Vice President and inform him of an aircraft approaching the Pentagon, asking if the "orders" still stand. The orders, which Cheney affirmed, appear to have been that the aircraft should not be shot down. Reinforcing Skepticism "Skepticism about the official account is actually reinforced by the newly released videos," Fetzer said. "If a Boeing 757 had come across the lawn at low altitude but high speed, it would have brought about extensive damage to the lawn." And both of the videos suggest that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was skimming just above the ground. The "smoking gun" at the Pentagon, he observed, is the clear, smooth and unblemished lawn. "It would have been especially unlikely that an inexperienced pilot like Hanjour could have flown a large airplane so close to the ground and not collided with it," Fetzer remarked. "That is a feat even experienced pilots would have found very difficult to accomplish." "No one watching these clips over and over, focusing on each frame, can find unambiguous support for a large aircraft, much less a Boeing 757," he added. "How much less likely that bypassers in the vicinity, who only had a brief chance to notice this happening, could have figured out what they saw. Nothing here remotely resembles a Boeing 757." Even the Pentagon itself is covered with cameras. The most serious question raised by the release of these videos may be why other videos, which would provide clearer and far more revealing information, have not been released. "The most plausible explanation for withholding this evidence from the American public," Griffin observed, "is that the American government has a great deal to hide." _____________________ Contact information: James H. Fetzer, Ph.D. Founder and Co-Chair Scholars for 9/11 Truth (218) 726-7269 (office) (218) 724-2706 (home) (218) 726-7119 (fax) http://www.st911.org __________________ "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful" -Seneca the Younger (~4 B.C.E. - 65 C.E.)

05-26-2006, 02:28 PM	#2
geologyrox Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 513 My Car: Model: Package: Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Friends: 0	I'm not a conspiracy theorist - in fact, I thought this theory was so distasteful that I hadn't searched out any details, until they appeared on PriusChat. I admit I'm hardly convinced - not even sure it's credible, as I haven't looked at the details. I am a little confused as to why the response to conspiracy theories would be to release an inconclusive tape. I was active in the Civil Air Patrol for quite a while, and even worked a few crash sites. I can't imagine that if a 757 hit the Pentagon, it wouldn't be obvious that a 757 hit the Pentagon. It should be easy to find one short tape that would make it crystal clear. How has this gotten stirred up? Jared, have any facts for a SAR girl like me to skim through? I admit I'm afraid to see what kind of sites this must be popping up on. __________________ "If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas." - George Bernard Shaw

05-27-2006, 01:36 AM	#8
daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 11,798 My Car: 2004 Prius Model: Package: #6 Thanks: 77 Thanked 289 Times in 182 Posts Friends: 0	Are we supposed to believe that after two planes hit the World Trade Towers, and shortly before a third crashed into a field because the passengers turned against the hijackers, the CIA, or some other super-secret government agency, hijacked flight 77 and took it somewhere secret and secretly imprisoned the passengers, and then crashed something else into the pentagon to cover up for their own hijacking? And for what purpose? At least the JFK conspiracy theorists can offer a plausible motive for their conspiracy (somebody wanted LBJ instead of JFK in the White House). All I can say is, that's pretty wacky. Sure the government has covered up for its own stupidity and incompetence, and refused to give out lots of information. But this notion that whatever hit the Pentagon was not flight 77, is the looniest of all the conspiracy theories going around. __________________ Daniel Primary car: Zap Xebra SD, 100% electric. 1.9 cents per mile. Range: 40 miles total, or 32 miles to 80% discharge. Top speed 35 mph. Faster downhill. Uses electrons generated from water power. Gas guzzler for when I have to travel farther than 30 miles: 2004 Prius. "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." -- Emma Goldman "Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war." -- Otto von Bismarck

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentagon Confirms It Sought To Build A 'Gay Bomb'	larkinmj	Fred's House of Pancakes	23	06-13-2007 11:40 PM
Pentagon explicitly approves Torture	EricGo	Fred's House of Pancakes	30	01-24-2007 11:23 AM
New Pentagon Propaganda Push	MarinJohn	Fred's House of Pancakes	14	11-02-2006 10:40 AM
EPA wants to ban carcinogen, Pentagon says it's junk science	JackDodge	Environmental Discussion	1	03-29-2006 05:24 PM
Call the Pentagon, GPS was down last night!	naterprius	Gen II Prius Audio and Electronics	3	04-07-2005 03:41 PM

05-26-2006, 02:49 PM	#3
jared2 Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,615 My Car: Model: Package: Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Friends: 0	"Jared, have any facts for a SAR girl like me to skim through" I recommend "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11" by David Ray Griffin and "The War on truth:9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism" by Nafeez Mosaddeq Mosaddeq Ahmed. Also, the websites: http://www.911truth.org/ and scholars for 911 truth at http://www.st911.org/ Have a good weekend.

05-26-2006, 02:57 PM	#4
Marlin Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Bucks County, PA Posts: 1,409 My Car: 2005 Prius Model: Package: #6 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts Friends: 0	Seeing how the WTC was definitely hit by large commercial airplanes (we're not disputing that too are we?), why is it so hard to believe that a plane that disappeared over DC, from which cell phone calls were received stating that it had been hijacked, was what slammed into the Pentagon? I'm curious. Did they ever retrieve any large piece of the planes that hit the WTC towers?

05-26-2006, 07:09 PM	#6
airportkid Will Fly For Food Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: San Francisco Bay Area CA Posts: 1,431 My Car: 2005 Prius Model: Package: #5 Thanks: 0 Thanked 20 Times in 13 Posts Friends: 3	That the gov't, especially THIS gov't, refuses to release information does not automatically mean that Flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon. It only means that some gov't functionaries fear embarassment or loss of their jobs if they release info. Sheesh. Conspiracist wackos: answer a few obvious, glaring questions: Why was Flight 77's flight data recorder recovered from the ruins of pentagon, if the jet hadn't flown into it? It was this recorder that gave investigators the information that Flight 77's autopilot had been disengaged several minutes prior to the crash. What did the C-130 pilot, instructed to follow to the airliner he'd nearly collided with, see when he turned to follow it and watched it crash into the pentagon? And most important, WHERE is Flight 77, if not at the pentagon? The conspiracist nuts complain that Flight 77's hijacking pilot wasn't skilled enough to make the maneuvers observed by numerous witnesses before the jet struck the pentagon, so it could not have struck the pentagon. Well, here's some news just in: the Titanic's helmsman wasn't skilled enough to steer such a large ship such a precise glancing blow against the iceberg, so the Titanic never sank. It's ancient hull was recently discovered in Perth, ashore and converted in 1916 to a block of low rent flats. The Cheney (Bush puppet) gov't is without question witholding info, stonewalling and in all respects behaving in a manner that gives undiluted evil a bad name, but attacking it by claiming space aliens teleported a full sized airliner to Alpha Centaurus, or whatever it is the conspiracist loons' confused, incoherent claims are, does NOT help. Mark Baird Alameda CA

05-27-2006, 02:33 AM	#9
eyeguy13 Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 337 My Car: Model: Package: Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Friends: 0	What hit the Pentagon?? Nothing!!!! It was all done on a sound stage. The same sound stage that 'faked' the moon landings. Don't you guys know anything??? Going to the moon?? How could that be possible? (joking of course.......it's 1:32 AM, what the hell am I doing on PriusChat. I need to get a life )

05-27-2006, 02:35 AM	#10
Jeff Beaver Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 36 My Car: Model: Package: Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Friends: 0	Frankly, I find this nauseating thread an insult to my intelligence, and an afront to every decent American. I've got news for the simple minded left wing nut job conspiracy theorists. It was 19 fanatical Arab Islamists -- not Bush, and not some dark neocon plot. And yes, Jews did go to work at the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11. End of story.